SUNIL CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
LAWS(JHAR)-2011-5-4
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on May 09,2011

SUNIL CHANDRA SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) While the Petitioner was an agent of the Respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India, he secured two proposals on 12.8.1998 for Rs. One lakh each on the life of Mr. O.P. Verma-insured. While giving proposal, moral hazard report was also submitted on the same day, wherein it was stated by the Petitioner that he knows Mr. O.P. Verma since last two days. On submission of the said report, Mr. Verma was examined by the L.I.C. doctor who did not find anything wrong with the health of Mr. O.P. Verma. Thereupon, the Development Officer (Respondent No. 5) did certify that the information furnished in the moral hazard report is correct.
(2.) On completion of the aforesaid formalities, proposal was accepted on 11.9.1998. consequently, two policies were issued in favour of the life insured - Mr. O.P. Verma. However, Mr. O.P. Verma died on 30.9.1998 which gave rise to early death claim. After his death when inquiry was made, it transpired that the insured was suffering from Diabetic Nephropathy for last 3 to 4 years and had chronic renal failure and at the same time, he was having massive plural effusion for which he was treated at Apollo Hospital, Ranchi from 28.7.1998 to 6.8.1998. On such disclosure, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the then Development Officer, whereby the punishment of censure was inflicted upon him. After completion of the departmental proceeding against the then Development Officer, notice was issued to this Petitioner on 3.7.2002 calling upon him to show cause as to why not his services be terminated with forfeiture of all commissions payable to him for suppressing the material information.
(3.) Upon receiving said notice, a letter was written wherein request was made to provide him certain documents so that effective show cause be submitted, which were supplied to him. Subsequently, the Petitioner realized that some more documents would be necessary and hence, he made' request to supply certain documents such as finding given against the Development Officer on the inquiry report, the claim form submitted by the nominee of the deceased and a letter issued by the wife of the deceased. The then Divisional Manager (Respondent No. 3) instead of supplying those documents passed an order on 18.12.2002 (Annexure-11), whereby the agency of the Petitioner was terminated with forfeiture of all commissions.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.